Towards Common Standards on Rights of Suspected and Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings in the EU?

Towards Common Standards on Rights of Suspected and Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings in the EU? February 2010 Mar Jimeno-Bulnes The CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe publication series offers the views and critical reflections of CEPS researchers and external collaborators with key policy discussions surrounding the construction of the EU s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The series encompasses policy-oriented and interdisciplinary academic studies and commentary about the internal and external implications of Justice and Home Affairs policies inside Europe and elsewhere throughout the world. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which he is associated. This publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form for non-profit purposes only and on the condition that the source is fully acknowledged. ISBN 978-92-9079-975-7 Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (http://www.ceps.eu) CEPS, 2010

TOWARDS COMMON STANDARDS ON RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED AND ACCUSED PERSONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE EU? CEPS LIBERTY AND SECURITY IN EUROPE /FEBRUARY 2010 MAR JIMENO-BULNES * 1. Introduction The Swedish Presidency of the EU presented in July 2009 a new Roadmap with a view to fostering protection of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings in the Union. The Roadmap set out its vision to foster the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings across the EU. 1 The same Presidency also presented a Draft Resolution on 31 July 2009 outlining the grounds and content of the Roadmap, 2 which was adopted by the Council on the 30 November 2009. 3 Its aim was to invite the European Commission to submit new legislative proposals covering the measures included in the Roadmap, and in this way overcome the obstacles encountered by a previous Commission initiative of 2004 on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the EU. 4 In light of the importance of this topic for the protection of the rights of suspected and accused individuals in a European Area of Justice, numerous civil society organisations and other relevant actors have reacted. 5 At the time of writing, European Council Conclusions of 10/11 December 2009, which incorporated a fundamental contribution to the development of the EU s Area of Freedom, * Professor of Procedural Law at the University of Burgos (Spain); for any correspondance Mjimeno@ubu.es. FinanciaL support provided by the Spanish Ministry of Science and FEDER is gratefully acknowledged (Research Project: New contributions to the area of freedom, security and justice: towards a European Procedural Law in civil and criminal matters, DER2009-12306, subprograma JURI). The author would like to express her gratitude to Sergio Carrera and an external anonymous reviewer for their comments. 1 Presidency of the Council of the EU, Roadmap with a view to fostering protection of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings, Brussels, 1 July 2009, document No. 11457/09, DROIPEN 53, COPEN 120. Search of this document as any other from the Council of EU can be done at official website http://register.consilium.europa.eu. 2 Presidency of the Council of the EU, Draft Resolution of the Council on a roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, Brussels, 31 July 2009, document No. 12531/09, DROIPEN 78, COPEN 150. 3 Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, Official Journal C 295, 4 December 2009, pp.1-3 according to version presented on 24 November 2009, document No. 15434/09, DROIPEN 149, COPEN 220, being appreciated only two slight differences from mentioned draft and afterwards commented. 4 Proposal for a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, COM(2004) 328, 28 April 2004, 5 Position statement on Procedural Rights and Safeguards in Criminal Proceedings by International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and JUSTICE as well as Joint Position on Procedural Safeguards by same institutions besides Fair Trials International and Irish Council for Civil Liberties, both of them redacted in July 2009 (http://www.amnesty-eu.org); last one contained the claim for the incorporation of the roadmap on procedural rights into the Stockholm Programme, which at that time was still silent on the topic. 1

2 MAR JIMENO-BULNES Security and Justice (AFSJ), were just published. 6 The Conclusions included the so-called Stockholm Programme, which foresees the policy priorities that will guide the EU s AFSJ for the years 2010-14. In particular, the European Council considered as a challenge to ensure respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and integrity while guaranteeing security in Europe and identified as a priority - that law enforcement measures to safeguard individual rights in order to create a real and tangible AFSJ as single area in which fundamental rights are protected. 7 It is now time to see the ways in which this challenge is going to materialise in practice in the context of the future Action Plan implementing this Stockholm Programme which is expected to be presented by the Commission and adopted at the latest in June 2010 under the auspices of the Spanish Presidency of the EU. 8 This paper starts by making a short exposition of the general policy framework within which we need to understand the Council s Roadmap on the promotion of procedural guarantees in criminal proceedings and its connection with the Stockholm Programme; reference is also made to former proposals in this policy area. Second, it provides an analysis of the proposed measures contained inside the Roadmap. 9 We review what has been proposed and address its compatibility with what should have been included according to existing European standards; here special mention is made to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the jurisprudence of the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR). Third, the paper offers some critical reflections addressing the provisions encapsulated by the proposed Roadmap. Finally, we put forward a set of policy recommendations aiming at improving a future common legislative framework on procedural rights in the EU. 2. Setting the Policy Context: The Protection of Rights of Suspects and Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings In its Communication on An Area of Freedom, Security and Justice serving the Citizen of 10 June 2009 10 the Commission recognised the lack of any regulation concerning procedural rights in criminal proceedings at EU level, and called for a major effort on this issue. The Communication included no reference to the Roadmap which later on originated from the Swedish Presidency. 11 Among its proposals for the next multi-annual programme on an AFSJ the Stockholm Programme the Commission suggested to make the benefit of the area of freedom, security and justice more tangible to the ordinary citizen. 12 The Commission identified as one of the main policy priorities the promotion of citizens rights in order to create 6 European Council (2009), Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council, 10-11 December 2009, EUCO 6/09 available on official website of European Council (http://www.consilium.europa.eu, menu European Council, European Council Meetings, Presidency Conclusions). 7 Ibid., points 26 and 27. 8 Ibid., point 33. 9 Our analysis uses the definitive text published in Official Journal. This text comes from version agreed at the Council of EU on 24 November 2009, Document No. 15434/09. 10 European Commission (2009), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen, COM (2009) 262 final, Brussels, 10.6.2009. 11 First reference under the title rights of the individual in criminal proceedings is done in Presidency of the Council of the EU, Draft Multi-annual programme for an area of Freedom, Security and Justice serving the citizen (The Stockholm Programme), Brussels, 16 October 2009, document No. 14449/09, JAI 679, p. 9, point 2.4. 12 Ibid., pp. 4-5.

TOWARDS COMMON STANDARDS ON RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED &ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 3 a Europe of rights, which was later on reiterated by the European Council Conclusions of December 2009. 13 It is here, in relation with such promotion of citizens rights across Europe, where a future common policy dedicated to the rights of individuals in criminal proceedings has been envisaged by the Stockholm Programme. The latter states: the protection of the rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings is a fundamental value of the Union in order to maintain mutual trust between the Member States and public confidence in the European Union. 14 In this context, the Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights in all criminal cases across the EU has become a key component of the Stockholm Programme, which invites the Commission to enact concrete legislative proposals for assuring the implementation of the measures contemplated therein. It must be recognised that the protection of the rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings has been one of the Chapters inside the Stockholm Programme where more progress has been achieved during the negotiations inside the Council s rooms. In particular, the last version of the Programme is particularly demanding as regards the implementation of specific proposals foreseen inside the Roadmap. 15 Also a new addition has been made in order to extend the list of procedural rights contemplated in today s Roadmap. Indeed, the European Council invites the Commission also to assess whether other issues (would be necessary) to promote better cooperation in this area, with explicit reference to the presumption of innocence. 16 Finally, we can also see in the final version of the Stockholm Programme the introduction of a new chapter on detention, where the Council calls upon the Commission to reflect about initiatives to promote the exchange of best practices where the procedural rights of detainees should be also included. 17 It therefore appears that the Council has taken on board some of the policy priorities put forward by the European Parliament in the field of criminal justice in its Resolution of 25 November 2009. 18 The debate about the protection of procedural rights in criminal proceedings is clearly not new at EU level. A previous Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union (henceforth, the FWD Proposal) 13 Brussels, The Stockholm Programme An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, document No. 17024/09, DO EUR 3, JAI 896, POLGEN 229. 14 Ibid., point 2.4. 15 Presidency of the Council of the EU, Draft Multi-annual programme for an area of Freedom, Security and Justice serving the citizen (The Stockholm Programme), op. cit., p. 9, point 2.4., which explicitly declares the European Council invites the Commission to come forward with appropriate proposals for its swift implementation, on the conditions laid down therein (italics belong to the author). 16 At the moment only a Green Paper has been presented by the Commission; see European Commission (2006), Green Paper on the presumption of innocence, COM 2006 (174) final, 26.4.2006. 17 See point 3.2.6. This chapter was already included in previous versions; see Presidency of the Council of the EU, The Stockholm Programme An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, Brussels, 25 November 2009, document No. 16484/09, REV 1, JAI 866. 18 European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen Stockholm programme, P7_TA-PROV (2009) 0090, point 112 and further version on 18 November 2009, B7 0155/2009 retrieved at official website http://www.europarl.europa.eu/regweb/application/registre/simplesearch.faces (last access on 14 December 2009).

4 MAR JIMENO-BULNES had been presented by the European Commission on 28 April 2004. 19 However, after the initial work carried out by the Commission and the amendments proposed by the European Parliament, the initiative was never adopted by the Council. After years in the Council s hands, where arduous negotiations took place, a much lighter counter-proposal was set out and further revised versions surfaced during the Austrian, Finnish and German Presidencies of the European Council in 2006 and 2007. 20 The failure of this initiative was mainly due to the hard opposition expressed by certain EU Member States delegations namely the UK, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Malta and Slovakia which considered that the protection of procedural rights was already laid down in Arts. 5 and 6 of the ECHR and that this protection should be considered sufficient. As a result of the failure experienced by the previous proposal and in an attempt to pursue the policy objective to establish a common European legislation contemplating a shared catalogue of procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings as part of the due process of law, the strategy advocated at EU level has therefore been to proceed separately (a sector-by-sector approach) starting with the regulation of specific procedural rights where wider agreement exists between EU member state delegations. In this case, the first turn has been taken by the right to interpretation and translation, where a new proposal for a Council Framework Decision was presented in July 2009, 21 and which is currently under negotiation inside the European Parliament and Council, now under the form of initiative of Directive due to Lisbon Treaty amendments. 22 The fate of this and other related initiatives on the topic of procedural rights will be surely different since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. The latter offers a clear legal base in Art. 82 (2) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) and therefore renders the argument claiming the inadequacy of the legal basis put forward by certain national delegations no longer sustainable. 23 Art. 82 (2) TFUE expressly declares that the European Parliament and the Council may, by means of directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, establish minimum rules They shall concern: b) the rights of individuals in criminal procedure. According to this text, any European regulation covering this topic is contemplated as minimum standards and, obviously, member states will 19 COM (2004) 328 final, Brussels, 28.4.2004. See also Green Paper from the Commission Procedural safeguards for suspects and defendantsin criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, Brussels, 19.2.2003, COM (2003) 75 final. 20 See M. Jimeno-Bulnes (2008), The Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, in E. Guild and F. Geyer (eds), Security versus Justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union, Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 171-202; also F. Irurzun Montoro (2007), Negotiating the Framework Decision on procedural safeguards in the European Council, in C. Arangüena Fanego (ed.), Procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, Valladolid: Lex Nova, pp. 25-45. 21 Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings, COM (2009) 338 final, 8.7.2009. 22 Initiative for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings; at the time of writing last version is presented in Brussels, 22 January 2010, document No. PE-CONS 1/10, DROIPEN 6, COPEN 22, CODEC 41 available at Council of EU s official website above indicated. See also Explanatory memorandum in document No. 5673/10, DROIPEN 8, COPEN 25, CODEC 47. 23 Also R. Löof (2006), Shooting from the hip: Proposed minimum rights in criminal proceedings throughout the EU, European Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 422-30, as well as C. Arangüena Fanego (2008), Procedural guarantees of suspects and defendants, in M. de Hoyos Sancho (ed.), Criminal proceedings in the European Union: Essential safeguards, Valladolid: Lex Nova, pp. 131-162.

TOWARDS COMMON STANDARDS ON RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED &ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 5 remain free to introduce higher protection standards for such rights of individuals. 24 It is also important to point out that for first time constitutional rules in EU call for the enactment of a legal framework covering Criminal Procedural Law as a sort of harmonisation (now approximation) 25 in parallel to traditional judicial cooperation. 26 This situation needs to be welcomed as long as the defence of procedural rights constitutes an indispensable component of existing and any future security measures at EU level. 27 Prior to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, there have been enormous discussions inside the Council about the necessity and added value at times of providing a catalogue of procedural rights at EU level taking into account the framework of protection already provided in ECHR. It is well known that this argument has been advocated by certain member states in order to avoid any kind of transnational regulation in this field, which justified the failure of the former 2004 Commission proposal and persisted until today. That notwithstanding, a new perspective on procedural rights is necessary within the EU s AFSJ as a whole 28 and as complementary component to the increasing development of European judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The development of an EU legal setting on the protection of procedural rights in criminal matters is the only way forward for the EU to properly meet the challenge to respect fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and guarantee justice, and in order to ensure that 24 See also S. Peers (2008), EU Criminal Law and the Treaty of Lisbon, European Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 507-529, p. 513. 25 Concept already used by the literature before the Lisbon Treaty; see for example A. Weyembergh (2005), Approximation of Criminal Laws, the Constitutional Treaty and the Hague Programme, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 1567-1597. 26 Approximation can even have an enhanced position in relation to traditional mutual recognition in new regulation according to some literature; see E. Guild and F. Geyer (2009), Introduction: The search for EU Criminal Law Where is it headed?, in E. Guild and F. Geyer, op. cit., pp. 1-16, at p.12. Conversely, other authors consider the approximation not as an aim in itself but as a tool of the aim of mutual recognition as much as it is only contemplated in order to facilitate the latter according to explicit text provided in Art. 82 (2) TFUE; see for example S. De Biolley and A. Weyembergh (2008), Le traité de Lisbonne et la fin annoncée du troisième pilier: sortie de crise pour l espace pénal européen?, in P. Magnette and A. Weyembergh (eds), L Union européenne: la fin d une crise?, Bruxelles: Editions de l Université de Bruxelles, pp. 201-218, p. 213, as well as E. Herlin-Karnell (2009), Waiting for Lisbon Constitutional reflections on the embryonic general part or EU Criminal Law, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp.227-242, p. 230. 27 The same position was supported several years ago; see M. Jimeno-Bulnes (2004), After September 11 th : The fight against terrorism in national and European law. Substantive and procedural rules: some examples, op. cit., p. 252. As has also been pointed out: it is simply a matter of a symmetrical imperative: no system of criminal justice, at whatever stage in its development, is complete without addressing the issue of procedural safeguards ; see M. Fletcher and R. Löof with B. Gillmore (2008), EU Criminal Law and Justice, Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar, p. 50. In this context and as another example in the literature see also E. Baker (2009), From past imperfect to future perfect? A longitudinal study of the Third Pillar, European Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 25-54, p. 34 and V. Mitsilegas (2009), EU Criminal Law, Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, p. 31 and ff. under the title the politics of the third pillar: member states security ambition versus institutional checks and limits. Also in previous times by J. Apap and S. Carrera (2004), Progress and obstacles in the Area of Justice and Home Affairs: An overview, in J. Apap (ed.), Justice and Home Affairs in the EU. Liberty and Security issues after enlargement, Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. 1-24, p. 12. 28 See A. Klip (2009), European Criminal Law, Antwerpen: Intersentia, p. 425.

6 MAR JIMENO-BULNES approximation and mutual recognition in this area go in same direction, which is far from being always the case. 29 Further, any approximation on this policy issue has a special significance because it not only implies a kind of sectoral approach as far a European regulation is provided in a specific area as it is, in this case, in the field of procedural rights but also a kind of transversal or horizontal approach. 30 Undoubtedly the last one would have been more efficient as much as the set of procedural safeguards contemplated will have to be enforced in all criminal proceedings to be developed in EU member states (sectoral approach) as well as in all instruments provided to facilitate judicial cooperation in criminal matters between same member states (transversal or horizontal approach). Finally, it can be argued that now specific constitutional provisions relating some specific procedural rights are also foreseen as much as the present Art. 6 (1) TEU recognises the binding character of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 31 In this context, procedural rights such as right to an effective remedy, right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence, right of defence, non bis in idem and even principles like legality of proportionality are there explicited. 32 But only a cross-reference is done under the mentioned precept and, what is worse, its enforcement is far away to be generalised in whole Member States as far as such binding character is exceptued in some Member States as it is, in concrete, UK, Poland and, last, Czech Republic. 33 That is the price to be paid according to the flexibility (in fact, exceptionalism ) imposed by the Treaty of Lisbon. 34 3. An Outline of the Proposed Measures in the Council s Roadmap After an Explanatory Memorandum, which first refers to the ECHR and its protocols as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights ( Strasbourg-proof ) 35 along with few comments in favour of a common European regulation on procedural rights in criminal 29 In this context, see E. Guild (2004), Crime and the EU s constitutional future in an area of freedom, security and justice, European Law Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 218-234. 30 See V. Mitsilegas (2009), The third wave of third pillar law: Which direction for EU criminal justice?, European Law Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 523-60, p. 547. 31 Original version enacted on 7 December 2000, Official Journal C 364, 18 December 200, pp. 1-22 was adapted on 12 December 2007, Official Journal C 303, 14 December 2007, pp. 1-16. See extensively S. Peers and A. Ward (2004), The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing. 32 Specifically, Arts. 47-50. 33 See Protocol No. 30 on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and to United Kingdom and Declaration No. 53 by the Czech Republic on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, both of them in Official Journal C 115, 9 May 2008, pp. 313-314 and pp. 355-356 respectively. Conversely, other Member States, like Spain, reproduce at the national level the whole content of this Charter to be used as interpretative criterium related to the constitutional protection of fundamental rights; see Organic Law 1/2008, 30 July, Spanish Official Journal No. 184, 31 July 2008, pp. 32919-32925. 34 In this context, see S. Carrera and F. Geyer (2008), The Reform Treaty and Justice and Home Affairs: Implications for the Common Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in E. Guild and F. Geyer, op. cit., pp. 289-307, p. 303. Specifically related to such exceptionalism applied to the Charter of Fundmaental Rigths see A. Moriceau (2008), Le Traité de Lisbonne et la Charte des droits fondamentaux, Revue du Marché Commun et de l Union Européenne, No. 519, pp. 361-364, p. 363. 35 Point 13 Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009, op. cit., although the mention of Strasbourg-proof included in the original roadmap s draft has disappeared in the text of the Resolution.

TOWARDS COMMON STANDARDS ON RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED &ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 7 matters, 36 the Resolution presents a set of six measures. Nevertheless, this list does not constitute a numerus clausus because the Council has reserved itself the option to consider the possibility of addressing the question of protection of procedural rights in matters different from those expressly listed inside the catalogue. 37 As an example, a first step in the area of procedural rights has been already launched through a sort of horizontal approach (and not sectoral) by amending various mutual recognition-related Framework Decisions dealing with the provisions related to in absentia judgments; 38 undoubtedly it is a big effort in the line of harmonisation (now approximation) of a common agreement by member states despite some specific failures. 39 The measures now envisaged are the following: 40 1) translation and interpretation; 2) information on rights and information about the charges; 3) legal aid and legal advice; 4) communication with relatives, employers and consular authorities; 5) special safeguards for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable; and 6) a Green Paper on the right to review of the grounds for pre-trial detention. Measure 1: Translation and interpretation. The Resolution states: The suspected or accused person must be able to understand what is happening and to make him/herself understood. A suspected or accused person who does not speak or understand the language that is used in the proceedings will need and interpreter and translation of essential procedural documents. Particular attention should also be paid to the needs of suspected or accused persons with hearing impediments. 41 According to the ECtHR s interpretation of Art. 6 (3) (e) ECHR, 42 such right guarantees the right of an accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial. In general, and according to the same interpretation, this includes, inter alia, not only the right to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings. 43 Besides, linguistic assistance not only 36 E.g., it is now time to take action to improve the balance between these measures ( facilitate prosecution in the area of judicial and police cooperation ) and the protection of procedural rights of the individual ; see Explanatory Memorandum, point 10, Ibid. 37 Point 12, Ibid. The provision in due course maintained in original resolution s draft has also disappeared in final text. 38 Council FWD 2009/299/JHA of 12 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural right of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the abstract of the person concerned at the trial, Official Journal L 81, 27 March 2009, pp. 24-36. 39 Unfortunately the final text has eliminated the common definition of such decisions rendered in absentia, which contemplated custodial sentences or detention orders and was provided in the previous initiative presented by Slovenia, France, Czech Republic, Sweden, Slovakia, UK and Germany, Official Journal C 52, 26 February 2008, pp. 1-18; only a slight approach to a common definition has been introduced in the above-mentioned Art. 2 FWD concerning each FWD amended. See M. Jimeno-Bulnes (2009), Spain and the EAW: Present status and future perspectives, in E. Guild and L. Marin (eds), Still not resolved? Constitutional issues of the European Arrest Warrant, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, pp. 261-296, p. 271. 40 The order of the measures proposed seems to be only indicative as well as the short explanations provided for every measure. The Resolution states that the rights included in this roadmap could be complemented by other rights ; see Council s Resolution in p. 2, point 2. 41 Original text of this last sentence agreed on 31 July 2009 has been also amended; initial redaction was wider in order to provide particular attention to the needs of suspects and accused with physical impairments which their ability to speak or understand the language used in the proceedings ; see document, 12531/09, op. cit. 42 Textually, everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. 43 Standford v. UK, 23 February 1994, 26.

8 MAR JIMENO-BULNES covers the inability to speak a language, but it also refers to acoustic abilities as it is pointed here, considering that such a specific provision is applied to deaf suspects or people with hearing or speech impairments, for whom qualified and experienced sign language interpreters must be assigned in court proceedings and in police interviews. 44 In this context, the new Art. 2 (1) Initiative for a Directive of European Parliament and of the Council on the rights to interpretation and to translation explicitly provides the right to interpretation before investigative and judicial authorities, including during police questioning, during all court hearings and during any necessary interim hearings as well as the assistance of persons with hearing impediment 45 to be respected in all criminal proceedings as well as proceedings to be delivered for the execution of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW). 46 Also the right to translation of essential procedural documents is here included, without mention of what precisely they are. In any case, according to ECtHR jurisprudence, more restrictions are usually placed on the right to translation since the latter is limited to the translation of those documents that allow the accused to have knowledge of the case against him and to defend himself, notably by being able to put before the court his version of events in short, those that need to be understood in order to have the benefit of a fair trial. 47 A more explicit provision of the documents that are considered to be essential procedural documents for translation is now contemplated in the mentioned Initiative for a Directive on interpretation and translation. Art. 3 (2) of this Initiative declares that the essential documents to be translated, in whole or the important passages thereof, shall include at least detention orders or equivalent decisions depriving the person of his liberty, the charge or indictment and any judgment, where such documents exist. 48 Moreover, a general clause in relation to the possibility by the suspect or his/her lawyer to submit a reasoned request for translation of further documents, which are necessary for the effective exercise of the right of defence extends the initial list according to Art. 3 (3) of the same Initiative for a Directive. 49 44 FWD Proposal on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, 28 April 2004, p. 14, point 64. This interpretation assistance for persons with hearing or speech impediments was also provided originally in Art. 2 (5) FWD Proposal on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings according to the original draft enacted by Commission. 45 Present initiative for a Directive mentioned above has made sensible changes in this text. Text in original FWD Proposal on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings provided also the right to interpretation during all necessary meetings between the suspect and his lawyer in addition to assistance of interpretation for persons with hearing and speech impediments. Also an important provision in order to contemplate the right to interpretation in his/her mother tongue if possible before any other interpretation to another language that he understands as expressed in the original draft has been included in same Art. 2 (1). 46 See Art. 1 (1) Initiative for a Directive, op. cit. 47 Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, 74. The same distinction between interpretation and translation is made in Hermi v. Italy, 18 October 2006, especially 68 and ff. 48 Besides a right of appeal against a possible refusal, the translation of the above-mentioned documents is contemplated in Art. 3 (4) same Initiative for a Directive. Nevertheless, it has lost the translation of essential documentary evidence according to the original draft on same Art. 3 (2) FWD Proposal. Also some other amendments have taken place in the text now negotiated and for example a provision in order to offer an oral translation or an oral summary of the documents referred to in this Article as substitutive of the right to translation of those ones has been introduced in Art. 2 (6) Initiative for a Directive and a possible waive of such right has been also included in Art. 2 (7). Both provisions seem to reduce the initial considerations provided by the Commission in favour of an extensive right of translation as interpreted by EctHR. 49 Also lost is the explicit reference to the possible translation of the written legal advice from the suspect s lawyer according to the original draft provided in the same Art. 3 (3) FWD Proposal.

TOWARDS COMMON STANDARDS ON RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED &ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 9 The proposed measure does not include any reference to the quality of interpretation and/or translation, which constitutes an important difference from the text of the original 2004 Commission proposal. 50 This omission is striking taking into account the importance granted by the Commission to this particular point as far as the lack of accuracy and qualified interpretation and/or translation is in a majority of cases one of the biggest problems amongst the EU member states. 51 Its importance has been equally emphasised by recent ECtHR jurisprudence such as in Protopapa v. Turkey (judgment of 6 July 2009). 52 The current proposal does neither include a reference to free access to both rights which was also foreseen in the 2004 FWD Proposal as well as in Art. 6 (3) (e) ECHR. 53 Nevertheless, it is to be welcomed that a minimum reference to both provisions has been included in the new text as regards the specific issue as it is mentioned in the Initiative for a Directive on the rights to interpretation and to translation. 54 In addition, a Resolution on Best Practices is currently underway. 55 Measure 2: Information on rights and information about the charges. The Resolution establishes that a person that is suspected or accused of a crime should get information on his/her basic rights orally or, where appropriate, in writing, e.g. by way of a Letter of Rights. Furthermore, that person should also receive information promptly about the nature and cause of accusation against him or her. Anyone who has been charged should be entitled, at the appropriate time, to the information necessary for the preparation of his or her defence, without prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings. Both guarantees, i.e. the right to get 50 Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, op. cit., p. 10, point 37, explicitly the profession suffers from a lack of status, with translators and interpreters sometimes being poorly paid, not having social benefits (such as paid sick leave and pension rights) and complaining that they are not consulted enough by their counterparts in the legal profession. Also the proposal for training, accreditation and registration of both legal professions was discussed in the previous Commission s Green Paper Procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, Brussels, 19.2.2003, COM (2003) 75 final, p. 29 and ff. 51 See M. Jimeno-Bulnes (2008), op. cit., p. 192 and specifically M. Jimeno-Bulnes (2007), Free access to interpretation and translation and B. Vidal Fernández (2007), The right to accurate interpretation and translation of a high standard: Articles 8 and 9 of the Proposal for a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, both in C. Arangüena Fanego, op. cit., pp. 153-181 and pp. 211-229 respectively. 52 Textually, according to 80, in view of the need for that right to be practical and effective, the obligation of the competent authorities is not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances, may also extend to a degree of subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation provided (see Kamasinski, cited above, 74). 53 The leading case in the interpretation of ECHR rules is Lüdicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, judgment of 28 November 1978, where the ECtHR came to the conclusion that the term free/gratuitement means a once and for all exemption or exoneration ( 40). See also the more recent case Isyar v. Bulgaria, 20 November 2008, 45 and ff. 54 In concrete terms, Art. 4, which declares that Member States shall cover the costs of interpretation and translation resulting from the application of Articles 2 and 3, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings as well as Art. 5 in regulation that Member States shall take concrete measures to ensure that the interpretation and translation provided shall be of adequate quality so that the suspected or accused person, as well as a person subject to the execution of a European Arrest Warrant, is full y able to exercise his or her right. 55 Council of EU, Proposal for a Resolution of the Council and of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council fostering the implementation by Member States of the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings, Brussels, 23 October 2009, document No. 14793/09, DROIPEN 133, COPEN 205.

10 MAR JIMENO-BULNES information of basic rights orally or, where appropriate, in writing (e.g., by way of a letter of rights), 56 and the right to obtain information about the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her, have been included in the Resolution in similar terms as those provided by the former 2004 Commission FWD Proposal on procedural rights. 57 Although sometimes the literature 58 has made a distinction between the categories of charge and accusation, both of them involve the same content in light of the answer held by the ECtHR in the case of Lutz v. Germany. 59 As regards the nature and cause of a charge or accusation, the information should be clear and correct and it should be presented in a language that the accused person understands; which, if necessary, should require the assistance of an interpreter or translator, insofar as there is an evident connection between the present right and the instrumental right of interpretation and translation. 60 Conversely, according to ECtHR standards, 61 no special formal requirement should be required as to the manner to inform the accused. Further, following the interpretation carried by the ECtHR, the right to information should include not only facts but also legal qualifications. 62 However, access to the file by the individual concerned, which was mentioned in first version of the Swedish Roadmap, has disappeared in the draft Resolution as long as no jurisprudential reference by ECtHR has been carried out about this issue until present. 63 Any specific regulation surrounding this field should include an explanation about the meaning of appropriate time as envisaged in the present text, considering that this information must be provided, at a minimum, before the accusation in order to provide the effectiveness of the right here contemplated. An enumeration of the content of such information should be also desirable. 64 Measure 3: Legal aid and legal advice. The Resolution stipulates: The right to legal advice (through a legal counsel) for the suspected or accused person in criminal proceedings at the earliest appropriate stage of such proceedings is fundamental in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings; the right to legal aid should ensure effective access to the aforementioned right to legal advice. The Resolution contemplates here the general right of defence and refers 56 The final text does not make changes compared with the original Draft Resolution, but it is nevertheless different from the first roadmap text as much as in the first roadmap s text the right to get information on his/her basic rights in writing was exclusively enacted. 57 Art. 14; conversely, a specific provision to guarantee the provision of information about the charges was not contemplated in such FWD proposal. 58 S. Trechsel (2005), Human rights in criminal proceedings, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 195. 59 Judgment of 25 August 1987, where it was declared that the Court proceeded on the basis that in using the terms criminal charge (accusation en matière pénale ) and charged with a criminal offence (accusé, accusé d une infraction) the three paragraphs of Article 6 referred to identical situations ( 52). 60 See the aforementioned Brozicek and Kamasinski cases; in the first, a written translation of the accusation was required, while in the second, oral information supplied by an interpreter was enough. 61 See specifically Miraux v. France, 26 September 2006, 31 and ff. 62 Pélissier v. Sassi, 25 March 1999, 51. This case probably represents the most relevant jurisprudence on the matter as in this judgment it is also pointed out by the CHtHR that the right to information is part and parcel of the right to a fair trial protected as a whole in Art. 6 (1) ECHR and is also connected with the right of the defendant to prepare his or her defence according to Art. 6 (3) (b) ECHR. 63 Although it should be observed as part as the most general right of defence; in this sense see M. Chiavario (2005), Private parties: The right of the defendant and the victim, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds), European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 541-593, p. 558. 64 E.g., reference to the law, date and place of the fact, specification of the material fact, indication of the elements or sources of proof ; see E. Valentini (2007), The other rights and the information about the charge, in C. Arangüena Fanego, op. cit., pp. 375-379, p. 379.

TOWARDS COMMON STANDARDS ON RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED &ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 11 to two specific procedural safeguards: first, the right to legal aid as a whole covering, among others, the costs of this legal advice and previous interpretation/translation; and second, the right to legal counsel. In this context, according to the expression at the earliest appropriate stage contained in the measure, the right to legal advice should be available to every suspected person as soon as possible and, in any case, before answering questions in relation to the charge at hand. This was also specifically provided in the 2004 FWD Proposal on procedural rights. 65 Nevertheless, offering a definition of the meaning of earliest appropriate stage of proceedings would be also desirable in order to properly guarantee the right to legal advice. 66 In addition, and in accordance with Art. 6 (3) (c) CEDH, which operates as minimum standard in relation with the general right of defence, three different procedural rights should be here considered: first, the right to self-representation; second, the right to freely chosen legal assistance; and third, the right to obtain legal aid. First, although not expressed, the right of defend oneself in person should be allowed if it is also permitted under domestic law. 67 This would also include the possibility to waive the right to such legal assistance according to ECtHR jurisprudence. 68 Secondly, the right to a technical defence with a lawyer of one s own choosing should also be assured, including, for instance, confidentiality of conversations between the accused and counsel. 69 Lastly, the right to free legal aid should be also contemplated with regard to the defendant s economic situation in correspondence with the respective obligation on the part of the state. 70 Last but not least, a separate regulation for both rights legal aid and legal advice would be strongly recommended as much as they are completely different procedural safeguards. With such provision of legal aid as an independent right, a more extensive guarantee will take place covering not only the previous Measure 1, but also in relation to the free access to another professionals or services as they are generally provided in national legislation. 71 Measure 4: Communication with relatives, employers and consular authorities. The Resolution provides: A suspected or accused person who is deprived of his or her liberty shall be promptly informed of the right to have at least one person, such as a relative or employer, informed of the deprivation of liberty, it being understood that this should not prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings. In addition, a suspected or accused person who is deprived of his or her liberty in a State other than his or her own shall be informed of the right to have the competent consular authorities informed of the deprivation of liberty. According to this text, a stricter requirement is contemplated for the suspect or accused persons in those cases involving the 65 Textually, Art. 2 (1) a suspected person has the right to legal advice as soon as possible and throughout the criminal proceedings if he wishes to receive it and Art. 2 (2) a suspected person has the right to receive legal advice before answering questions in relation to the charge. 66 Same opinion by C. Arangüena Fanego (2007), The right to legal assistance in the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision relating to certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, in C. Arangüena Fanego, op. cit., pp. 85-116, p. 155. 67 That is the right to proceed pro se waiving the right to legal assistance; see R.J. Allen et al. (2005), Criminal procedure: Investigation and right to counsel, New York: Aspen Publishers, p. 215. Also discussion in ECtHR jurisprudence, e.g., Foucher v. France, 18 March 1997 and Lagerblom v. Sweden, 14 January 2003. 68 Case Foucher v. France, Ibid., 17 and ff. 69 It was made clear by ECtHR in Öcalan v. Turkey, 12 March 2003, 146. 70 See leading cases Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, and Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983. 71 For instance, the right to free expertise, the free publication of notifications and summons in newspapers, the exemption of the payment of deposits, the access to some official copies and documents for free as it is contemplated in Spanish Law for Legal Aid 1/1996, 10 January.

12 MAR JIMENO-BULNES deprivation of liberty. It must be remembered that in this particular case this guarantee is not expressed as part neither of the right to a fair trial ex Art. 6 ECHR nor even the right to liberty and security ex Art. 5 ECHR but there are international rules dedicated explicitly to regulate states obligations in this area such as the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relation (VCCR); 72 as well as some cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), 73 which have taken place as a consequence of the breach of this safeguard. In relation to the enforcement of this right, the adoption of special protocols for police conduct in the EU has been proposed, which would oblige arresting officers to inform suspects taken into custody of this right and to contact the consular authorities when a foreigner is detained. 74 Finally, the sentence that has been included in the Resolution reading this should not prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings is in our view of a rather obvious nature. Measure 5: Special safeguards for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable. The next measure highlighted by the Resolution reads as follows: In order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, it is important that special attention is shown to suspected or accused persons who cannot understand or follow the content or the meaning of the proceedings, owing, for example, to their age, mental or physical condition. The objective of such measure would be to guarantee the fairness of the proceedings in accordance with ECHR standards. In this case a sort of definition has been added in the proposed text for Draft Resolution in comparison with the initial version of the Roadmap which only included a general clause related to vulnerable suspects and defendants without specifying who they were. Nevertheless, although the addition of such examples relating to some personal conditions (such as age, mental or physical health), a specific list of potentially vulnerable categories of persons will need to be mentioned in further regulation because the present text does not provide enough information. In this context the list provided in the former Commission s Green Paper could be useful, 75 despite its non- 72 Art. 36 (1) provides: (a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State; (b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trail or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison; custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph; (...). 73 E.g., Breard case (Paraguay v. USA), Order of 9 April 1998 (case discontinued); Lagrand case (Germany v. USA), judgment of 27 June 2001; Avena case (Mexico v. USA) judgment of 31 March 2004 all of them retrieved from the official website (http://www.icj-cij.org, menu list of all cases) But as was pointed out by same Commission in its initial Green Paper on procedural safeguards presented in 2003, apart from the fact that such a procedure entails great complexity and an extraordinary duration, a suit before this Court may only be brought by one state against another, which is considered that does not treat one of the citizens of first one in accordance with consular protocol. In sum, it is not provided a remedial action for the same individual concerned and for all these reasons the inclusion of present measure as necessary; see Green Paper from the Commission Procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, op. cit., p. 38. 74 See A. Blanco Peñalver (2007), The rights to consular assistance and information, in C. Arangüena Fanego, op. cit., pp. 345-354, p. 350. 75 E.g., foreign nationals, children, mentally and physically handicapped, pregnant women and mothers of young children (especially single mothers), illiterate persons, refugees, alcoholics and drug addicts; see Green Paper from the Commission Procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, op. cit., p. 36. Another categories have been also suggested as persons in a situation of extreme poverty, elderly persons, migrants, prisoners, persons infected with